| 1 |
* Samuli Suominen schrieb am 01.08.11 um 09:23 Uhr: |
| 2 |
> On 07/31/2011 05:23 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 16:55:23 +0300 |
| 4 |
> > Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> >> I dislike the IUSE="+static" some packages are currently doing to |
| 7 |
> >> workaround this, instead of moving the needed shared libs to / |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> I dislike the idea of pciutils and usbutils database(s) in |
| 10 |
> >> non-standard location in / to keep udev working |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> I dislike the idea of moving libglib-2.0, libdbus-1, libdbus-glib-1, |
| 13 |
> >> and couple of dozen more libs to / |
| 14 |
> >> |
| 15 |
> >> I dislike the idea of maintaining and keeping track of the files in / |
| 16 |
> >> using files from /usr. Does any of the PMs have check for this, like |
| 17 |
> >> NEEDED entries? I can imagine this getting past the maintainers easily |
| 18 |
> >> otherwise |
| 19 |
> >> |
| 20 |
> >> Most likely still not seeing the full picture here, and just |
| 21 |
> >> scratching the surface... |
| 22 |
> >> Despite that, I don't have any strong opinion on any of this, just |
| 23 |
> >> need to know if I should start moving the files over |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > Honestly, I'd rather see system libs and apps being moved to /usr |
| 26 |
> > rather than the opposite. IMO the benefit of getting a clear tree is |
| 27 |
> > greater than benefits of having separate fs for 'system' and |
| 28 |
> > 'non-system' packages which actually tend to randomly depend one on |
| 29 |
> > another. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> that's my impression now too since nobody has managed to provide useful |
| 32 |
> case for separate /usr, or they have been very vague like adding 1+1 on |
| 33 |
> / and /usr filesystem sizes and counting the risk of corrupted |
| 34 |
> filesystem from that (one word: backup) |
| 35 |
> and even then they can go with dracut and have the initramfs mount the |
| 36 |
> /usr before init |
| 37 |
> dracut with it's externsive modules covers the other mentioned cases too |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
I always keep /usr seperate from / for isolation reasons. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
IMO there are some good reasons to do so: |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
* For example if a filesystem fills 100%. Imagine your /usr is 100% |
| 45 |
full by accident. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
If you have a seperate / you always can still write to /etc or /root |
| 48 |
which might save your life. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Sometimes a system might not even be bootable if / has no space |
| 51 |
left. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Sure, this is not the case normally and never should be. But if it |
| 54 |
happens to you, you will be happy to have them seperated. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
* IMO its a good idea to seperate mostly static filesystems from |
| 57 |
those with many writes |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
* Some people want a read-only /usr |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
* /usr/portage can get very huge and is often written to. With |
| 62 |
/ and /usr being on the same FS you really want to have |
| 63 |
/usr/portage on a seperate FS then |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
I am sure there are some other reasons too. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Just my 2¢ |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
-Marc |
| 70 |
-- |
| 71 |
8AAC 5F46 83B4 DB70 8317 3723 296C 6CCA 35A6 4134 |
Archives